It’s an indirect argument. True. That’s the beauty of UBI, it let’s us imagine – even indirectly – a better future, a dream, which, at least for now, is what is needed. The biggest threat to democracy, if I may say so, seems to be resignation and demoralisation of those who consider themselves democratic.

It’s a speculative argument, too. But I haven’t heard of a more convincing one. How do we safeguard journalistic autonomy in an industry increasingly dominated by click baiting and click rates – where all the money goes to Google and FB. I’m not sure we can go back to the days in which national media scored high on trust. A pluralistic media lanscape seems to be the antidote to an authoritarian one and UBI may faciliate or enable that pluralism.

Maybe the best way to think of UBI is as an eanabler. It’s not a solution to anything (but financial poverty), it’s a tool with which to rebuild the world. Some will use it to follow their passion a write good news stories. I’d certainly try to 🙂

I think that’s basically correct, but an extremely indirect argument for a basic income, and an equally indirect argument for how to protect freedom of the press.

I think that basic income and freedom of the press are both holistically sound, and that they do indeed reinforce each other. Still, I think each more easily stands on its own merit than one stands in order to support the other.

And still, the connections you make are intriguing. Thank you for making them.